Poll: What type of Insurance Coverage?

[artguy]

What type of insurance Coverage to you have on your bimmer?

EDIT: Quick Poll Definitions:

Full Coverage = should be self explanitory. Would cover damage to car, injuries to passengers, liabilities, etc.

Liability Only = refers to the most basic insurance you can get to drive the car. This is called many, many different things from state to state and country to country.

[whiskychaser]

Not sure what liability only is. You used to be able to get Road Traffic Act insurance in the UK but that what the bare minimum. These days third party, fire and theft or fully comprehensive are the norm. The difference being in a third party accident your car doesnt get fixed. I have fully comp plus driver's legal protection plus protected no claims. Its about £10 more than third party fire and theft but unfortunately I'm past my 21st birthday:)

[repenttokyo]

quebec is radically different from anywhere else in north america in terms of insurance coverage. If I have an accident anywehre in north america, it's impossible for me to be sued for personal injury or any other reason - i'm protected by the quebec government.

[attack eagle]

I have liability and non insured motorist coverage at the moment.

Contemplating upgrading to comprehensive and adding extra coverage for non-stock wheels & tires, but probably won't do that until after I install a 2way aftermarket alarm as the discount should just about pay for the upgrade.

[winfred]

liability on the e30 and sol when it got popped, i may upgrade coverage for the truck and da shark

[Barney Paull-Edwards]

Canadian insurance sounds sensible,personal liability is a financial killer if you travel,cost me more than car cover for Eastern Europe,as for russia,$230 a day!

[Herb]

I have full for the e34 because I drive it everyday and if anything where to happen to it it won't be a total loss.

[ryan roopnarine]

quebec is radically different from anywhere else in north america in terms of insurance coverage. If I have an accident anywehre in north america, it's impossible for me to be sued for personal injury or any other reason - i'm protected by the quebec government.

how do you figure this? what prevents someone, in the us, for example, from suing your insurance company (provincial in this case) for the full amount of your coverage, and not suing you for an additional amount?

[repenttokyo]

how do you figure this? what prevents someone, in the us, for example, from suing your insurance company (provincial in this case) for the full amount of your coverage, and not suing you for an additional amount?


you can't sure my insurance company for personal injury, because they don't cover me for personal injury...you can't sue me because I am protected legally by my provincial government. In quebec, there is no legal concept of civil damages for injury as the result of a car accident, and there is no tort law for car accidents - it's called no fault insurance. What you would have to do is prove to the Quebec government that you lost work and wages as a result of your injury, and they will compensate you for that work and wages. I think there is also a provision for dismemberment. But you can't sue for damages. The province decides how much, if any, "pain and suffering" money is to be paid out after an evaluation. Everyone in the province is covered by the government as part of their license fees.

This system keeps thousands of personal injury suits out of the courts and saves millions of dollars in lawyer fees and court costs.

Here's an article on one person's opinion on why this no fault plan has not been adopted by any US states: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/sugarmans/Quebec309.htm

[ryan roopnarine]

i'm really trying not to be mean here, but quebec law doesn't really apply outside of quebec. that link does not address my concern. there's nothing that quebec can do (outside of quebec, of course) that prevents someone in, say michigan, from suing you personally in michigan court for an accident that happened in michigan. civil law in the us does not allow for that, in the same way that you probably couldn't "sue" the us federal government for money in the us, but you probably could in a canadian court. whether or not your insurance provider will pay certain damages is one thing, but saying that an individual (say the michiganer) can not sue you personally for the typical quantification of pain and suffering in an american court is not correct. please see the piper aircraft example in this document for a discussion of this.
http://www.nexsenpruet.com/assets/attachments/79.pdf

if a quebec court was unwilling to handle a pain and suffering lawsuit, all that the michiganer would have to do is file a lawsuit in an appropriate court, have you served, and let stew.....in the event that (they) won, quebec might have codified laws that allow you to ignore payment of a judgement, but the michigan court can certainly see to it that any holdings, property, bank accounts &c &c in the us are used to satisfy the judgement. you may or may not have any assets in the us, so that might be an academic exercise in yoru instance.

[ryan roopnarine]

this wikipedia article covers the subject somewhat and even discusses the quebec example--and their right to decline jurisdiction in such a situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_non_conveniens

[repenttokyo]

i'm really trying not to be mean here, but quebec law doesn't really apply outside of quebec. that link does not address my concern. there's nothing that quebec can do (outside of quebec, of course) that prevents someone in, say michigan, from suing you personally in michigan court for an accident that happened in michigan. civil law in the us does not allow for that, in the same way that you probably couldn't "sue" the us federal government for money in the us, but you probably could in a canadian court. whether or not your insurance provider will pay certain damages is one thing, but saying that an individual (say the michiganer) can not sue you personally for the typical quantification of pain and suffering in an american court is not correct. please see the piper aircraft example in this document for a discussion of this.
http://www.nexsenpruet.com/assets/attachments/79.pdf

if a quebec court was unwilling to handle a pain and suffering lawsuit, all that the michiganer would have to do is file a lawsuit in an appropriate court, have you served, and let stew.....in the event that (they) won, quebec might have codified laws that allow you to ignore payment of a judgement, but the michigan court can certainly see to it that any holdings, property, bank accounts &c &c in the us are used to satisfy the judgement. you may or may not have any assets in the us, so that might be an academic exercise in yoru instance.


Clarification of my previous point:


Whether or not they are at
fault, Quebecers injured in a
road accident while they are
outside Québec are entitled to the
same compensation under the public
plan.
However, if a Quebecer is responsible for
the accident, he or she may be sued in the
courts of the jurisdiction where the accident
occurred for compensation of bodily injury
and property damage caused. The Quebecer
is then protected by the liability insurance
mandatory for travel in Canada and the
United States, which in such a case covers
both bodily injury and property damage to
another party. The insurance protection must
be of a sufficient amount.
If the Quebecer is not responsible for the
accident, he or she retains the right to sue
under the laws of the jurisdiction where the
mishap occurred, if this is allowed, in order to
recover damages or seek greater compensation
than what the Société might pay.
Before suing, however, the Quebecer must
advise the Société, which has the right of
first remedy, which it may decide to
exercise.


it seems I was wrong about the extent of my coverage.


you might also be interested in this:


A non-resident travelling on Québec roads
who is the operator or passenger of a
motor vehicle registered in Québec is
entitled to the same compensation as a
resident for an accident sustained in
Québec.
Where the motor vehicle is not registered
in Québec, non-resident operators
and passengers qualify for compensation in
inverse proportion to their share of responsibility
for the accident that occurred in
Québec (ex.: the non-resident bearing 20%
of the blame will be entitled to 80% of the
benefits provided under the plan), unless the
person’s home jurisdiction has entered into
a reciprocal agreement with the Société,
providing for other terms.

[repenttokyo]

this wikipedia article covers the subject somewhat and even discusses the quebec example--and their right to decline jurisdiction in such a situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_non_conveniens


quebec's law system is confusing. we are the only province in canada to have a civil law system for private law, whereas all other provinces have only common law as a system.

[Ferret]

Not sure what liability only is. You used to be able to get Road Traffic Act insurance in the UK but that what the bare minimum. These days third party, fire and theft or fully comprehensive are the norm. The difference being in a third party accident your car doesnt get fixed. I have fully comp plus driver's legal protection plus protected no claims. Its about £10 more than third party fire and theft but unfortunately I'm past my 21st birthday:)

I've got fully comp on my E34, it's only about £30 difference in the policy from churchill.

I dont get fully comp to protect the car lol, just to get the glass protection where you only have to pay £70 to replace the windscreen/other glass. It's already paid for itself as well because some tosser smashed my windscreen a few weeks back - add the £70 excess and £30 extra premium means I've ended up paying £100 for what autoglass would have charged £350 for... (I've still got the invoice and it makes me laugh every time I see that cost on it!)

Ever tried to insure a 90's ford escort? Cos all the ricers insure theirs 3rd party and then crash 'em it actually costs MORE to go 3rd party only... I had an £80 escort for a few weeks (while looking for a decent TDs) and did a double-take wtf? moment when I checked the policies out on it! £100 less on fully comp! :D

[leicesterboy15]

I've got fully comp for £530 which I don't think is bad at all for a 540i!

Another good tip - get your missus on the insurance (you don't have to tell her) or a female friend or maybe even an imaginary friend and it actually works out cheaper than just insuring yourself!

[Ferret]

I've got fully comp for £530 which I don't think is bad at all for a 540i!

Another good tip - get your missus on the insurance (you don't have to tell her) or a female friend or maybe even an imaginary friend and it actually works out cheaper than just insuring yourself!

Ha, yeah I've noticed that, really weird behaviour for the insurance :o

[artguy]

Wow! It's amazing how different insurance can be from state to state and country to country.

In Michigan our most basic insurance is called "PLPD." It stands for Public Liability and Property Damage. It satisfies your obligation to the state, and offers no coverage to your vehicle's damage. PLPD also does NOT cover theft, fire, comprehensive, or loss of use, nor does it cover repairs, or replacement in case of damage.

I have PLPD on my '94 530i, which costs me $48 per month.

Fairly cheap I think, but it's a gamble. On a car of this age it just doesn't make sense to put full coverage on it. The premium would likely jump to several hundred dollars per month. Also, if I were in an accident, no matter how minimal or severe, the insurance company would likely "total" the car anyway. They would give me a check for fair value and not fix a thing. Then I would have to get a salvage license and have additional problems insuring it again after I fixed it. :(

[spyrot1]

I have full coverage from GEICO on my BMW, which is the 3rd car on my insurance policy. I pay around $300 every 6 months for it.

Normally, I would only have liability for a car 12 years old... but since I've spent enough on it, I figure it makes sense to get something back in case of accident or theft.

It's a pretty good deal, considering I live in New Jersey...

[Tiger]

I am in the same situation... however I am very disturbed by my recent shopping for insurance... Right now, Geico covers me liability only for $430... (100/300/50)... if I ask for full coverage, my rate will go up to $560. HOWEVER, if I am not Geico customer and wants their full coverage insurance, my rate drops to $331... go figure.

I am in process of dumping Geico, the other insurance is covering me (500/500/100) and full coverage for $433... the same price I am paying for liability only. I have tried up and down with Geico and they won't budge.

The moral of the story is shop hard and don't forget regular insurance like Allstate, State Farm and others who are brick and mortars.

[Tiger]

Word of Advice... get the highest liability coverage you can... this is the most important thing and same for uninsured/underinstured coverage... Don't skimp on this and the price difference is only like 10's of dollars.

Comp is good to have... Collision really depends on age of car and what kind of financial status you are in. You have to consider this... especially if it only cost like $100 more for every six months... that's cheap insurance because most body damage will result in several thousands in repair bill no matter how you put it. For some of you, this may not be the case... meaning not just $100... but tons more.

Again, the liability is really important if someone sue you... or more importantly, you sue someone and he/she got freaking shitty low coverage... that's where your insurance covers that person to your level of insurance. My friend got rear ended so badly that he has lasting permanant injuries.

[Qube]

Neither.

Get Liability PLUS Comprehensive. So... if someone trashes your car in any way... crash... glass... stolen... it's covered. The ONLY thing not covered is if you are at fault and smash something.

[uscharalph]

I have liability and non insured motorist coverage at the moment.

Contemplating upgrading to comprehensive and adding extra coverage for non-stock wheels & tires, but probably won't do that until after I install a 2way aftermarket alarm as the discount should just about pay for the upgrade.
Same here.